BIP Draft OP_TWEAKADD #1944
BIP Draft OP_TWEAKADD #1944
Conversation
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
| ... \[h32] \[pubkey32] OP\_TWEAKADD -> ... \[pubkey32\_out] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think these backslashes are unnecessary in the preformatted code. At least they render for me in the preview.
| ... \[h32] \[pubkey32] OP\_TWEAKADD -> ... \[pubkey32\_out] | ||
| ```` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This has one backtick too many, although it doesn’t seem to change the rendering.
| Status: Draft | ||
| Type: Standards Track | ||
| Created: 2025-08-22 | ||
| License: BSD-3-Clause |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please add the missing Copyright section.
| ### Applicability and opcode number | ||
|
|
||
| - Context: Only valid in tapscript (witness version 1, leaf version 0xc0). In legacy or segwit v0 script, `OP_TWEAKADD` is disabled and causes script failure. | ||
| - Opcode: OP_TWEAKADD (0xBE, or TBD, any unused OP_SUCCESSx, preferably one which might never be restored in the future). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What does "preferably one which might never be restored in the future" refer to?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
E.g., it's desirable to not use 0x7f because that's OP_SUBSTR and if we ever did a soft fork like that, it's simpler to not change those opcodes.
from bip-347:
We specifically choose to use OP_SUCCESS126 rather than another OP_SUCCESSx as OP_SUCCESS126 uses the same opcode value (126 in decimal and 0x7e in hexadecimal) that was used for OP_CAT prior to it being disabled in Bitcoin. This removes a potential source of confusion that would exist if we had a opcode value different from the one used in the original OP_CAT opcode.
Opening this PR for feedback & discussion on the specification for OP_TWEAKADD.
Mailing list post: https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/-_geIB25zrg